3 ms·
You're trying to come up with distinctions between Open Source and Free Software where there are practically none, except for the politics of Free Software, whi
by bad_user 2y ago
You're trying to come up with distinctions between Open Source and Free Software where there are practically none, except for the politics of Free Software, which is inconsequential BS.
- lolinder 2y agoI guess what I'm saying is that the politics (I phrased it as ethics, but I think we're talking about the same thing) are far more consequential than people give them credit for, and isolating the mechanics from the ethical framework is why Open Source is losing coherency as a movement—it's a religion with no doctrine, and in the absence of a strong inward-facing ethic it doesn't have enough staying power to hold out in the face of monetary incentives.
- bad_user 2y agoThe whole point of Open Source was for it to not be a religion. If anything, it is the indoctrination in Free Software that led many young people to believe that proprietary software is immoral. Coupled with zero-interest rates, this led to companies founded without sustainable business models. The companies making it work are usually doing so by selling products and services where the OSS parts are complementary and not the main product being sold, and it's a good thing they do. I'd say that the doctrine part doesn't help at all.